Five Men Charged: $3.4 Million of Cannabis

January 25, 2011

Today [Jan 25] in Magistrates Court five men – including the two Carefree IV sailors – appeared on drug related charges stemming from the two marine interceptions this past Friday. All five men were charged with being in the “territorial waters of Bermuda possessing cannabis intended for supply,” with the cannabis said to be worth $3.4 million.


Carlos Rogers, 41, and Kwesi Hollis, 36, who had sailed from the Dominican Republic, were charged alongside three other men – Bilal Shakir, 39, Kinola Simons, 30, and Shaun Johnson, 27.

They first appeared in court at 10am however were charges were not laid, and the five men reappeared at 2:30pm this afternoon when they were formally charged. Dozens of onlookers gathered outside the courtroom, as they were escorted from Hamilton Police Station by approximately a dozen Police officers this morning.

When the five men reappeared in court this afternoon prosecutor Cindy Clarke laid out the charges.

The first charge – applied to all five men – between a date unknown and the 21st of January, 2011, they conspired with others not before the court to import cannabis.

The second charge – applied to all five men – between a date unknown and the 21st of January, 2011, were in the territorial waters of Bermuda possessing cannabis intended for supply.

The third charge – applied to three men: Bilal Shakir, Kinola Simons, and Shaun Johnson – handling cannabis with intent to supply.

The cannabis was said to be worth $3.4 million on the streets.

The men received bail in the amount of $30,000 each, with a surety, and must surrender travel documents and report three times a week to the Police. They are set to reappear for mention next month.

Top row left is Kwesi Hollis, with Carlos Rogers on the right. Bottom row left is Shaun Johnson, with Bilal Shakir on the right. Click to enlarge images:



Mr Rogers and Mr Hollis left the Dominican Republic on December 1, 2010 on the Carefree IV yacht, and were due to arrive in Bermuda that same month.

On December 18, a diverted merchant ship provided the Carefree IV with emergency supplies. The crew had requested assistance as they had run out of food, water and gasoline. In late December, a U.S. Coastguard C-130 aircraft conducted an aerial search for the missing 31-foot boat.

On January 3rd, local officials received a report from a passing boat that they had been in contact with the Carefree IV, saying the crew were safe, and requested provisions and fresh water to continue their voyage to Bermuda.

On Friday January 21, seven weeks after leaving their destination, the Carefree IV sailed into St George’s Harbour, having been boarded by armed Police officers.


Police arrested both Mr Hollis and Mr Rogers and searched the boat before hoisting the boat ashore, and transporting it to Southside Police Station.

Earlier that same morning, the Marine Police stopped a Boston whaler in the North Shore area, seized a quantity of suspected narcotics and arrested three men.

[Footage of five defendants is from 10am today]

Read More About

Category: All, Crime, News

Comments (107)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Terry says:

    I look at these frequent photo’s about people being led to Magistrates Court and my feelings still remain the same.

    Proactive means crap. It makes the Police look good but thats a myth.

    Count the number of officers in the photo.

    Thats proactive?

    What a waste of manpower. Oh, it’s looks good. Lets see some photo’s of them in court, or sketches. Hell, if you can put it up here, why not in court.

    Define ‘sanctity’.

    • Cleancut says:

      When you are desperate and angry you gain the strenth of ten men.

    • White Jesus says:

      C’mon Terry, now if one of them pulled a ‘maybury’ stunt ppl would be complaining that there should have been more police manpower. With this calibur of person you just never know. Maybury they will try to escape and Maybury they wont but it’s better to be over prepared than under.

      • Logic Shmogic says:

        Maybury they will and maybury they won’t – hahahahaha!

  2. Pete says:

    Not worth it.

  3. Terry says:

    Not worth what Pete. Um cunfoozed.

    • itwasn't me says:

      lemme answer your question. the prospect of a turning a profit on illegal activities is not worth the risk of jail time. NOT WORTH IT

    • Itcouldhappen says:

      We know that already Terry.

  4. Onlooker says:

    With all the drugs being seized I wonder which [edited] are going to be getting rich??!!?

  5. Terry says:

    Well thanks guys for enlighening me. I would have never known. Well I smell the steaks, and the big tabs at local resturants and the fancy yatchs and cars and trips overseas and the sitting on the balconies over looking their pristine lawns and the casual slap on the back…”what’s up Ace”……….


    Now tell thjat to the Gang members that arte killing each other and soon to be others.

    Boss….dis is wrong…..

    Ah shut up.

  6. downderoad says:

    lol oh snap the police are winning the war on drugs!!!!

  7. Terry says:

    Iwanna know what happened to all the other bales. Funny we see two on a dock at Penhurst. Thats no way worth $3.4 Million.

    Then again, sail the south shore, drop a few, radar if you have reflectors only produce so much….( carefull what you read, or think you know).

    Oh to be a Hog Fish and a beacon…….(wahoo sales were up to.)

  8. Joe Delmonte says:

    Is their ever a white individual incarcerated?…

    • Hate the Racism says:

      What a stupid comment. Racism like this needs to stop. Of course white people also get incarcerated. Looks like one of these men is a white person. Furthermore, if the statistics were perfectly even based on demographics there would still be more black people incarcerated because there are more black people in Bermuda. Time to look at something other than skin colour!!

      • Tam Bagan says:

        90 per cent of the crimes are committed by this particular racial segment. Is this just coincidence or is [edited]

    • Watching says:

      What an ignorant statement! How easy we forget the two white boys that were given 10yrs for the Dunkleys case. Selective memory….how convenient.

      • It Is What It Is says:

        @ “Watching” is “Tam Bagan” talking about blacks committing 90% of the time? Please say it isn’t so? let me add to what you said and refresh his memory….how about the white boy just a week ago growing weed in water, how about the one that was caught in Hamilton Parish with DRUGS and GUNS, how about the one that let his senior citizen parents go to jail for HIS DRUGS, how about the one with the samuri sword that was let go without consequence, but was only given some time because of the public outcry, how about the ones that go to the hospital weekends on a regular basis for injuries (from fights and domestic disturbances) but are never reported or considered news worthy..I don’t know if things have changed but when I went to school (Private) those kids got into just as much trouble as us black kids..but the difference back than was that their parents had the money to “make it go away” and I am sure that is still happening today…

    • DARRIN DIZZLE says:

      Ommm! Joe! Did you even look at the pictures. One of them is white so the answer to your dumb question is yes!
      Shuan Johnson looks mighty white to me.

  9. Terry says:

    Yes Joe there is.

    Isle 12, section three…….Hunts White Grapes, White Hummus, White corn, and on isle 38….”White Lightening”……………………..bwhaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

    Ps. White toilet paper…………….great for reflection and accumulation.

  10. D. Everett says:

    Bermuda’s version of worlds dumbest people….. no way could they have been thinking straight, the whole frigging country had their eyes on them.

  11. Organized Crimes says:

    They need to destroy all the drugs publicly!


    • common sense says:

      Yes they do, if not, it could go back on the streets!!!


      • It Is What It Is? says:

        @ Commom Sense…believe HALF of what you hear and all that you SEE….please don’t be fooled into believing that it does not end up back on the streets…..

    • Rockfish#2 says:

      Definitely!! The emphasis is on the word “All”

  12. Terry says:

    Ok…all you loud mouths. Turn up and be photo-ID at the next big Gunja burn. Partake and send left overs to the office party.

    Damn……the bars would get no business for two days. And folks wold be home with their children, getting high. I love the idea.

    Lets send the bill to the Senate, hell, lets bring in Beyonce.

  13. ESA says:

    Always good to see a Senator’s son in handcuffs.

    • RME says:

      Senator’s son??

      • It Is What It Is? says:

        Yes Dear ..catch was a Senator’s son..although I don’t quite get what ESA is trying to say..just because he is a Senator’s son it doesn’t make him perfect..he’s just like everyone else who chooses to do the wrong thing..Senator’s chidren, get in trouble too..just as Police, MP’s,Premeire’s, Pastors,Gardeners and Cashiers children do…..

        • RME says:

          Well DEAR that’s why I’m here reading and trying to figure out who’s who.

    • White Jesus says:

      Wow that’s a low blow. It only confirms that the problem is an island-wide one and hits every home. Oh But not YOUR home because everyone in your family are angels, I forgot.

  14. Uncle Ruckus says:

    lol! I love the police parades. The one in white should have been tasered for doing that stupid dance while crossing the street. It really shows their mentally when the prospect a jail time doesn’t bother them in the least bit. Get a real job. And LOL at the two usual conspiracy theorists saying a whole bunch of nothing.

    Bernews a request. Can we get their names under these lovely head shots? :)

    • bernews says:

      Added a caption above the pics with the four names. Missing is Simons, who had his head down this morning so we missed the shot….

  15. Andrew says:

    34 comments and nothing but rhetoric. Anyone have anything substantive to say?

    • White Jesus says:

      Welcome to the club, you had absolutely nothing substantive to say?

    • andy P says:

      i agree… i like how Terry’s comments have not gotten any attention on this thread as 99% of his posts are absolutely pointless.. amongst others who frequent the site

    • It Is What It Is? says:

      and you making the 35th comment says…..

    • Call as it is says:

      Andrew,ever heard of Free Speech/
      even The Troll has free speech…

      someone show him the door!

    • Uncle Ruckus says:

      Welp you just wasted another comment now didn’t you? Genius.

  16. tongue in cheek says:

    given the sad state of the economy, i hope that all these seized drugs are donated to charity.

  17. SEEING RED says:

    Please…take the pictures of all the other convicted drug dealers / importers…that got caught up in the hype, the lies, the desperation for the dollar, or whatever you want to call it….and and tell their unfortunate stories in OUR SCHOOLS! A picture is worth a thousand words! Show our kids that this is what happens when you take the easy road. Not that it has much to do with this story…. but lets educate the impressionable about the role that the drug MULE (and why they call them drug mules) plays in the imporation of drugs. I have two friends that were both approached (independently) by the same person over twenty years ago to import drugs on the same day, same flight. Both were desperate for money and both told that everything with customs was taken care of! Neither of these two individuals knew each other at the time. Years later it became obvious to me that one was the real mule and enlisted to bring in a small amount drugs (relative to the second person) and was “hired” at the expense of the first. Customs as I am made to understand were “tipped off” about the first. When the attention was put on the “mule” by customs on their big bust…the second slipped thru without any idea about what was REALLY going on. One was set up at the expense of the other. I’m sure this scenario plays ou more often than we think and customs would like to believe. How many of those in jail today have been the scaraficial lambs while other carriers cruise on by . Save our kids and educate them about the dangers.

    • serg says:

      And exactly how does that help? teach them about the danger of drugs and the harmful effects and what damage it can do to an individual.People have been going into schools for over 20 years and talking about their experiences with drugs back nd it aint working..talking about drugs is a delicate issue it does not have the same effect on everyone.what gets the better of people sometimes is the curiosity thats created by controversy about drugs.drugs need to be classified you can not tell a child weed and crack effects you the same,you can not tell a child that weed is the gateway drug to harder things because if you say that you have to say milk or water is a gateway for alcohol or looseing your virginity to a girl is the gateway for haveing sex with get through to young bermudians you have to be honest and tell no lies,because all the things i learned about drugs when i was young were lies

  18. can't believe the stupidity says:

    Serg, I can’t believe you would make such a ridiculous comment about weed not being a gateway drug and then comparing it to milk, water and sex! Are you high as you’re writing this or retarded? Let’s look at facts: weed gets you high, crack gets you high, thus the reason weed is seen as a gateway drug to crack. On the flipside of your ludicrous statement, water and milk quench thirst and provide nutrients to your body but don’t get you inebriated in any fashion like alcohol does so how could we tell children that water and milk are gateways to alcohol? Come on, please try to make sense when posting comments for the entire world to see so that they don’t think that Bermudians are illiterate!

    • jredmond says:

      For certain people, sex and food and TV can get them high. Thats why we have food, sex and TV addicts. Addiction is a mental disorder dependant on the individual.

      There is no such thing as a gateway drug.

    • serg says:

      its no difference because the gateway theory has been ruled ou worlwide and that accounts for one of the many reasons it has been decriminalized in over 50 you mean to tell me that heads of france spain and netherlands are fools,is barrack obama a fool for saying the gateway theory is rubish,judges and politicians across america feel the same way..gateway to alcohol,water,milk,coffee,sparkling water to beer to,pepsi,coke soda,red bull that gets you high also…gateway for sex,masterbation,sex with a girl to sex with a man…it dont make sense does it…look on youtube and type FBI agent gets school on marijuana.

    • 5boro says:

      @can’t believe the stupidity

      Doubt in the gateway theory is not ridiculous. In fact it demonstrates that someone is thinking logically. The gateway theory is based on the logical fallacy of “post hoc ergo propter hoc” (after this, therefore because of this). With this in mind, any substance that heroin or crack users have taken before trying the harder drugs can be deemed a gateway substance (i.e. aspirin, cough syrup, alcohol, etc.). However, pharmacologically, there is no known drug that leads to a craving for some other drug. Maybe the fact that marijuana is illegal and forces users to be exposed to dealers who sell other drugs could be considered acause. But that is not marijuana itself, but laws that lead to harder drug use.

      Proponents for the gateway theory are quick to demonize marijuana as leading to harder drug use, but there have been many studies showing that although the percentage of harder drug users have tried marijuana, the majority of marijuana users have not tried harder drugs.

      • sandgrownan says:

        Tell you what – decriminalise weed, BUT, random, mandatory drug tests at ALL places of work, especially bus drivers, ferry captains, MP’s, etc etc. and instant dismissal if someone fails.

        You’re not allowed to be drunk at work (unless you drive buses or drive ferries) so no work under the influence of weed?


        So, smoke all you want on the weekend, but you walk into my office after a toke in the park at lunchtime and I get to kick you all the way down Reid Street.

        • 5boro says:


          That sounds fair except for one thing. Marijuana remains in the system for up to three months after use. Personally, I think that marijuana use should be decriminalized, and the “policing” of usage should be done at the workplace. Let the employer and health & safety policy decide. I think that arrest could be less of a deterrent for usage than losing a paycheck would be.

          As far as “ALL places of work,” I think that’s a little extreme. I could care less whether the young lady making my smoothie or the guy renting my DVDs is high or not. I’d leave that to the employer to choose whether they want someone high (or who gets high) representing their business. However, health care professionals, construction workers, vehicle & machine operators, and child care workers, just to name a few, pose a great risk to the safety of themselves and others when working under the influence of any substance.

          Bear in mind that I am talking only about usage. Marijuana distribution is another situation.

          • sandgrownan says:

            If it’s your recreational drug of choice, then you need to deal with it. And perhaps the reason the young lady is serving you a smoothie is serviing your smoothie is becasue she’s a dope head.

            By your reply you have admitted that weed usage affects decision making, and at least this way we guarantee a steady stream of people wanting to serve your fries.

            Drug tests in all places of work. That’s the quid pro quo for decriminalisation.

            • 5boro says:

              “perhaps the reason the young lady is serving you a smoothie is serviing your smoothie is becasue she’s a dope head.”

              This could be the case, or it could be that she’s young and inexperienced or working over the summer while she’s home from school or working a second job or an artist, musician or actor. There could be countless reasons why someone would take a job like that.

              Be careful, because if you can infer from my comment that marijuana “affects decision making”, I can infer from your response that you consider many of the people who work in the food service industry to be “dope heads.”

              To make myself clear, testing for marijuana use will have the same results whether someone just used or used a month ago. The only way to determine whether or not someone is high on the job is to observe their appearance and behaviour. Using “on the weekend” will always produce a positive test result. It would make no sense to decriminalize usage and then make testing mandatory for everyone in the workforce. This would just eliminate job opportunities for users, which would most likely lead to more criminal and black market activity. The purpose of decriminalization is to reduce crime.

              Quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur.

              • sandgrownan says:

                ok, if what you say is true, where do you draw the line on who gets tested? Just above Smoothie girl? Just below a ferry driver? Taxi drivers? Accountants? Lawyers?

                If you want support for decriminalisation or even legalisation, you need to reassure me that folks I deal with on a daily basis are not impaired. Otherwise, take a hike.

                • 5boro says:

                  “Let the employer and health & safety policy decide… However, health care professionals, construction workers, vehicle & machine operators, and child care workers, just to name a few, pose a great risk to the safety of themselves and others when working under the influence of any substance.”

                  I made no mention of legalization, and I outlined my stance from the start. It’s your perogative to who you want or not want to “deal with on a daily basis,” as you have a choice of who you do business with.

                  And I’m making no attempt to garner support from anyone. I did not raise the issue of decriminalization. My original comment addressed the gateway theory and it’s shortcomings. Although I do support decriminalization, my responses have addressed the idea of mandatory drug testing for the entire workforce as a tradeoff. It was based on the premise that use on the weekend would allow a person to pass a drug test during the work week. There is no “if”, that premise is simply incorrect.

                  • sandgrownan says:

                    No. You miss the point entirely.
                    I fully agree that the “gateway” theory is nonsense, and that leads naturally to talk of decriminalisation, but if you want to decriminalise or even legalise then there has to be a trade off.

                    There has to be legislation to ensure that I am protected from dealing with someone under the influence. It’s not too much to ask is it? You cannot rely on employers to do this. It isn’t good enough.

                    If cannabis can be detected long after its effects have gone, then either a) don’t use it or b)figure out a more effective test. Either way, I need to be sure by taxi driver, ferry captain, accountant, chef, whoever, smoothie girl is acting with their full faculties.

                    • 5boro says:

                      This is your tradeoff. You will support decriminalization if a)people did not use under the threat of punishment of unemployment or b)there is an effective method to test for being under the influence enabling a more targeted execution of “a”.

                      Point “a” is just another form of prohibition and there is no existing method for testing for point “b”. So by reasoning, you do not support decriminalization. There is no a tradeoff.

        • SMH says:

          FYI…. if you was to smoke weed on the weekend by time you get to work the following day it would still be in your system darling…

          • sandgrownan says:

            Don’t smoke weed on the weekend then – it’s a choice. No-one forces you to do it. But if you want to function in society, beware the consequences.

            I don’t see why I should make allowances, and takes risks, for someone elses recreational needs.

            • 5boro says:

              It’s not a choice when one action leads to negative consequences. The effects of marijuana use do not last even though the traces remain in your system. If a person chooses to use when they are not working, they should not be penalized when they go back to work in a sober state.

              “You’re not allowed to be drunk at work (unless you drive buses or drive ferries) so no work under the influence of weed?


              “So, smoke all you want on the weekend, but you walk into my office after a toke in the park at lunchtime and I get to kick you all the way down Reid Street.”

              You recent comments are a far change from your original stance.

              • sandgrownan says:

                Hardly. I’m not against decriminalisation or even legalisation, but there has to be a compromise. What are “you’ going to do to protect me from someone who is high, or even slightly impaired?

                You cannot have it both ways.

                For the record, I am in favour of random breath tests.

                If you smoke weed, be wary of what impact it can have. It’s not unreasonable for a recreational pursuit of choice is it? If you don’t like the potential consequence, don’t do it.

                • 5boro says:

                  So in seeking protection from someone under the influence, it is necessary to eliminate all use. This is the basis of prohibition. So your compromise is not a compromise at all, because it basically states that rather than arresting users, they should be removed from the workforce. So they will punished economically instead of penally. As I stated before, this will result in more crime, just as current prohibition.

                  You are assuming that using marijuana means that you are high all the time. The policy of drug testing for marijuana will just show that they are a user, not whether they are high at the time of the testing. I cannot stress this point enough, even though your response has consistent. If a person is high on the job then it’s the employers perogative to penalize them, but there are no tests that can be given, short of observation, that will determine whether a person is high. Losing your job over a recreational pursuit is an unreasonable consequence when it is based on usage that occurs outside of the workplace or when the effects are experienced on your personal time. I compare this to being penalized for having a hangover at work. The effects of a drinking alcohol leave an employee slighty impaired for much longer than a marijuana user.

                  This returns us to prohibition. Should someone be punished for what they do on their own time? And they are to be punished not for what they did while they were high, but what they could do if they were high at work. That would be like punishing people who drink alcohol for drunk driving when they’re sober.

                  • sandgrownan says:

                    It’s not about punishing someone for doing something on their “own time” it’s about ensuring MY safety. If you can’t give me reasonable assurance then I can’t support decriminalisation/legalisation. Losing your job over recreational use in not unreasonable. IF you’re high at work – you’re high, you are risk to yourself and to others. You cannot rely on employers – it has to be legislated.

                    The poor analogy of alcohol is often raised. The technology and ability exists to prevent people from using alcohol at work or driving or whatever. All that is lacking is political will.

                    Should people be punished for something they do in their own time? If it puts others at risk. Absolutely.

                    • 5boro says:

                      Losing your job over recreational use is very unreasonable. Recreational use does not equate to use at work. In fact, it is the complete opposite. I stand by both alcohol analogies; you should not lose your job because you were drunk or high last night when you were not working, and you should not be punished for any potential acts. I don’t see how someone getting high on their own time is a risk to your safety.

                      There is no technology or ability to prevent use of alcohol at work, only to deter. There is legislation in place to penalize these actions, which serves as a deterrent. This is the same for marijuana. Yet while there are adequate means to testing whether someone is working under the influence of alcohol, there is none for marijuana. This alone makes the analogy appropriate.

    • Sara says:

      perhaps you should brush up on your research before you post.
      Sorry, the gateway theory is crap, sorry next.

    • Sara says:

      And there is no doubt that Bermuda’s young children are experiencing an addiction FAR greater than marijuana as far as health is concerned.
      Its called sugar. All the sugary drinks, candies, cookies are highly additive and Bermuda has an epidemic of extremely overweight children and adult diabetes(in children). Their is research to back up addiction to fatty/sugary foods so for those of you that want to say its not true, please do your research first before you spout off. I think we need to think about making “gateway food” illegal.

      • CanadianLuv says:

        dont forget the another major killer – Alcohol

    • nonsense says:

      it is a proven fact that most murderers have jay walked in the years prior to their first murder. therefore, it is a proven fact that jay walking is the gateway to a life of murder, right? while we’re at it, most rapists started out as masturbators in their younger years. therefore masturbating leads people to become rapists, right? *rolls eyes*

      the gateway argument is ridiculous and has long since been proven false. if anything, alcohol and tobacco are the ULTIMATE gateway drugs as it is an actual fact that most users of hard drugs started using alcohol and cigarettes even before they used marijuana or other drugs. but anyway like i said- the gateway theory is extremely flawed and has been proven to lack credibility.

      finally, full legalization would be difficult and probably unwise but de-criminalization seems to be a smart thing to do. afterall at no time, in any place, in the history of mankind has anybody died from an overdose of marijuana. it simply does not happen. how many people have been killed by tobacco and alcohol not to mention other hard drugs? countless MILLIONS.

      many of the claims about marijuana are based on scare mongering and data that was collected decades ago, using ridiculous testing parameters and with a clear agenda behind it. it’s just amazing to me that so many have bought into the same old lies without truly knowing what they’re talking about.

      • sandgrownan says:

        That’s not the point. How do you protect me from recreatioanl drug users?

    • Uncle Ruckus says:

      Serg did 3 years for harmless weed and is still defending it. You’d think he would stop.

  19. twoswordali says:

    This is a shame, but those who wish to destroy a community with drugs should be caught and locked away! But heres the real deal, now whenever you see people who get caught then bet your bottom dollar that there WAS other drugs that got in. Question…. how do we save our community from turning into corrupt thinking? Thinking that selling drugs is the only way out? Sooner or later one day it will catch up with you and it has for many. The selling of drugs and the gang violence is all interconnected, its like a raging bull and the police is like the matador, the more you wound this beast the more it fights to live. However the society is the ones who produced the stadium for this battle to take place and we just sit back and watch. To end this we each must know what it means to be a citizen and what it means to function as a citizen within a comunity then and only then those who choose to run wild in a society of decent people who are practicing citizenship will stick out like a wild animal running into a high class resturant. That animal will soon be caught and put away with for disturbing the peace, just sharing my thoughts thats all

  20. crazytalk says:

    I can’t understand why they’re not in orange suits with both wrist and ankle shackles. That would stop them running away, stop the stupid ‘dancing’ while crossing the street, and reduce the number of police needed to supervise them. Also, the slight stigma and humiliation might take the stupid grins off their faces.

  21. Terry says:

    Iy’s the typical ‘song and dance’ just to show his boss in the crowd that he hasn’t spilled beans yet. Theater, thats all.

    Don’t worry, he’s hurting emotionally, I can assure you.

  22. chris says:

    what is the biggest killer on the road?
    what is the name of the mayor of hamilton?

  23. Sara says:


    Its interesting that you are making the issue about weed and workers. Are you not concerned about these people being on prescribed painkillers? Which make you WAY more wacked out than wees ever could. Are you saying its okay to be at work high on opiate drugs because your doctor gave them to you, but not okay to be high on weed? weed is a natural painkiller but not physically addictive like opiate based drugs, so what do you think about this?

  24. sandgrownan says:

    I think you’re na idiot for drawing false equivalences.

  25. Sara says:

    I see I struck a nerve, as is usually the case wheb people resort to immature name calling, grow up.

  26. Sara says:

    I see I struck a nerve, as is usually the case when people resort to immature name calling, grow up.

  27. sandgrownan says:

    Au contraire. I’m actually astonished you and others cannot grasp a simple point.

    What is idiotic is to push the potential for decriminalisation or legalisation of dope on the weak argument that “people drive drunk” or “prescription painkillers can be mis-used”.

    The issue is not about the relative “whacked out-ness” achieved by putting crap into your body, the issue is about control.

    Do you get that?

    • 5boro says:

      The potential for decriminalization is not being pushed on the analogy to alcohol. That analogy is to draw a comparison only. There are many good reasons for decriminalization. And while control may be important to you, for many others the primary argument is that it will decrease drug related crime and violence. You continously stress a point of your personal safety from working people who use marijuana in their spare time. There are others who are more concerned about the criminals and the increase in gun violence that comes with the illegal marijuana market. There is also the loss of opportunity for minor infractions.

      I still don’t see how you fear for your safety by someone who uses marijuana in their spare time. So I see no reasoning that backs your desire for control. I’ve already stated that certain professions should have controls in place with specific reasons, but your extremist view of the matter and skewed view of what decriminalization is has done nothing to support your opinion. Yet you’ve continued your attempts to shoot down others’ points by attacking straw men, making divisive statements and name-calling.

      And I should point out again that you raised the issue of decriminalization and have yet to give any reason why. Your claim was that it “naturally” follows the gateway discussion. You also claim to support decriminalization, yet everything you’ve said demonstrates a support for prohibition.

      • sandgrownan says:

        For Christ’s sake. One last time…see if you can get it into your skull.

        I think we would agree the gateway argument is discredited, and that leads naturally to a discussion on decriminalisation and even legalisation. I agree there are many good reasons for pursuing this argument, including a potential reduction in drug related crime.

        I think also we would agree there are many substances, that misused can do us great deal of harm, alcohol, prescription drugs and so on. More to the point, someone under the influence, is not only a risk to themselves but also to others due to impaired judgement and an inability to function. Sara is quite incorrect, however, to assert that dope is somehow different because it is perceived to be less harmfull. It’s not. It affects judgement, reactions and has long term health consequences if misused.

        However, we have legislation that controls how other drugs are used. Alcohol – sold in licensed premises, alcohol content on the container, we have laws that dictate how much you can consume before you can operate a vehicle (for example). Are the laws adequately enforced? Perhaps not, but they exist to protect society at large. Prescription drugs are….see if you can guess…the clue is in the name….prescription i.e. prescribed by a medical professional with specific instructions on use because misused they are dangerous. Could usage guidelines be better enforced? perhaps, could or should they be legislated? – almost certainly.

        It is incorrect to argue dope should be legal merely because alcohol is legal. It’s a much better argument if you can demonstrate control that not only protects the user but protects society at large. If you can’t, then it needs to remain prohibited until you can. This is not extremist, it’s practical and reasonable and responsible.

        This made me laugh though “loss of opportunity for minor infractions”…if you can’t do the time don’t do the crime buddy.

        • 5boro says:

          While we may agree that the gateway theory has been discredited, I don’t agree that it “naturally” leads to a discussion on decriminalization or legislation. The discussion was taken in that direction by you. I made no mention of decriminalization–I was talking about logic and usage research(go back and check, I’ll wait…). Now you’re trying to take things in another direction by claiming that there is some argument for decriminalization based on alcohol policy. A point that has been asserted by no one. Now you’re also making claims to the effects of marijuana, of which is now an additional claim that you will have to support. And to be clear on legislation; laws, policies, and regulations are all based on legislation. You seem to use the term selectively. From what I’ve read, you explicitly state that you support decriminalization, but your reasoning implicitly (and explicitly) supports prohibition. Your last paragraph and last jibe are obvious examples of this.

          I challenge you to address any one of the main points that I’ve actually brought up:

          1. The claim to support decriminalization when you seek to penalize users indiscriminately by eliminating them from the workforce.
          2. Fear for your safety claims by someone who uses marijuana in their spare time when the effects aren’t experience in the workplace.

          *I’m tempted to challenge what you know of the longterm, shortterm and side effects of marijuana use, but it appears you have your plate full with the first two already.

  28. Sara says:

    That is not what I am talking about. Your whole discussion as seen above is based on you saying you have a problem if somone in the workforce is stoned on weed and they are serving you. Well, if someone is taking their prescribed dose of painkillers, that person may be high as a kite just taking recommended amount, it is afterall an opiate based drug. That is the issue. I think this is an extremely logical comparrison.

    • sandgrownan says:

      See comment above – but if someone is high because they don’t read the label, usage instructions or take the advice of the doctor, they should not be at work.

      i have a problem with anyone in the workforce “stoned” on anything. Get it?

      • Sara says:

        Let me say this again. When you take painkillers that are prescribed at the dosage the doctor says, YOU ARE STILL HIGH, therefore you are likely dealing with people in society that are high already. You don’t have to abuse them or take them incorrectly to be high. Got it?

        • sandgrownan says:

          Ah….all painkillers or specific ones? So every prescribed painkiller makes you high? Or just morphine? You a doctor or pharmacist? Are you including cold medications? And because of this assertion…..what? Dope should be decriminalised? Or because in your world it’s “not as “bad”…? What are you point are you making here? Or are you suggesting that I somehow would be OK with this?

          It seems to me like you’re trying to prove an inconsistency with my argument when none, in fact, exists.

          • Sara says:

            My point is you are already dealing with people that are high even if you don’t want too! I don’t think anyone should go to work stoned either but they do and its not just weed. My point is you are overreacting about marijuana and ignoring everything else.

            • Sandgrownan says:

              I think you misunderstand – I don’t doubt that some folks participate in society while perhaps, how should we say, not being in full charge of their faculties for a whole host of reasons. That’s unacceptable in my view.

              With dope, arguably it’s more or less harmful or more or less impeding than other substances but you cannot expect or rely on people in our newly libertarian utopia to act responsibly. I need to know my ferry captain (or whoever) is not high when I ride the ferry with my children.

              I don’t think that’s an overreaction or unreasonable.

              • Sara says:

                I don’t want my ferry captain drunk either, oh wait….

                • Sandgrownan says:

                  Exactly. So, if we have laws to prevent ferry captains being drunk, and they are flouted and poorly enforced…then how do we prevent our newly liberated population of dope heads?

                  • Sara says:

                    First off, weed is NOT dope!!! Dope is crack

                    • sandgrownan says:

                      Not where I come from, but the “street vernacular” for different substances is irrelevant. My premis is the same.

                  • Sara says:

                    Well sandgrownman, being that weed is illegal, how do you know they aren’t already stoned and driving the ferry? Being illegal means that anyone that is not drug tested at work could be high and SERVING you at any given time, so this means that things will be the same. I haven’t heard much of this type of thing happening, but I have heard WAY TOO MUCH about lots of work related accidents because of people being drunk at work. Perhaps they should start by giving all employees breath tests when they clock in to work. Now THERE is a test that will work fairly and tell you on the spot if someone is drunk.

                    • sandgrownan says:

                      Sara – I don’t and that’s the problem and that’s why I want mandatory drug testing.

                    • Sara says:

                      Realistically speaking, would you be okay with the fact that a worker tests positive for some weed that he/she smoked on the weekend and get fired because no test to tell otherwise, yet his buddy stayed out late drinking heavily and wakes up half drunk and goes to work and doesn’t get questioned because alcohol is legal? To me this is just not practical. I would rather have a stoner serving,driving,cooking for me ANY day of the week that someone who is drunk. I have even watched a tv program where they made a women in England do a driving test one day after drinking a few, a test the next day after smoking a joint, and another regular test with NO influence. Guess what the results were? She actually drove TOO cautious when stoned as most people tend to think they are going faster than they really are when they drive stoned. Guess what happened when she drove after having a few? She knocked down all the cones and reaction time was terrible and she thought the whole time she was doing a great job. Now, my point isn’t to say it is okay to drive stoned. My point is everybody calling for this regulation(which we need) needs to realize that weed being decriminalized/legal will NEVER EVER cause anywhere NEAR the types of problems that alcohol has/is. I feel people are overreacting a bit with the whole “oh no this person is stoned”. It’s really too bad those individuals don’t focus there energy on alcohol safety because it kills so many people every year. How many times have we heard of a stoned person killing someone because he was behind the wheel stoned? I can honestly say I personally have never heard a case, maybe you have. And please don’t assume that if weed were legal that the entire population would be getting stoned, it’s just not true. Case in point, I know LOTS of people that don’t drink alcohol even though it legal to purchase without fear of being arrested.

                    • sandgrownan says:

                      Well if you must keeping using the comparison to alcohol, you do know that the police regularly breathalyze people in the UK the morning after as they drive to work? And they make arrests? It could be done here.

                      However, the relative “seriousness” of the effects of weed compared to alcohol while interesting and worthy of discussion are not relevant to my argument.

                      I’ll ask again…How do I know my driver is not stoned?

                    • Sara says:

                      You currently don’t! I have a good feeling that you will be okay though. Just watch out for the drunk drivers though, they kill!!!

          • Sara says:

            Of course I am talking about narcotic painkillers!

  29. SJS says:

    Shut UbP. Go away BDA. Let the sheePLP govern the way they may.

    There is no way forward.

    Look to Eygpt.

    Or look to independant candidates.

    My brothers and sisters, we have been in a crisis for a while, and it looks grim.

    Why haven’t,

    “Anti corruption legislation”


    “Whistle blower legislation”

    Been at the fore of all our social “concience”. It’s a moral issue, it’s Sunday, either you want to regain your soul, or, you have destined yourself not to lie down in green pastures..

    It’s up to all of us to decide.

    These controls would put an end to the “powers that be”, who control this illicit drug trade.

    So, you will never see them, except for some watered down version, many, many, moons from now.